this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
220 points (85.5% liked)
Memes
46489 readers
995 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not in a Capitalist dictatorship. You can't vibe beneficial policies into place.
You cannot vibe policies into place.
There can be no revolution without the support of the masses, are you talking about a coup? Who suggested that?
Nobody argued against checks and balances, but against a Capitalist state designed to not fulfill the will of the masses.
Most democracies around the world have ranked choice or similar voting systems. Similarly, most have strict regulations on what campaign contributions can be used for. Those did come about by 'vibing' (as you call it) rather than revolution.
Those systems were put in place after revolutionary pressure as concessions.
Really? What revolutionary pressure was it Papua New Guinea under in 2008? What revolutionary pressures were on the UK in the 2000s to further regulate campaign finances?
Concessions were made in the context of struggle.
Could you elaborate?
Concessions were made in the context of struggle, ie without concessions there would be more pressure.
Please, read theory.
Could you point me to secularly resources I should read on these revolutions?
But if you're taking about the pressure voters put on elected officials, I'm all for it. But I'd hardly call that a revolution. That's just how the system is designed to work.
I didn't call them revolutions. Please read theory, history books, and my replies.
Sure then, give scholarly reading advice for revolutionary pressure in those events
In the example of Papua New Guinea, there were major dissatisfactions with money's role in politics, and LPV was granted as a concession. Had it not been conceded, the system stood risk of destabilization.
Major beneficial changes do not occur because people agree they are good. Major changes do not occur because the public asks nicely. Major changes occur when the ruling class recognizes the risk to their power if they do not bend, lest they break.
But was that risk to their power from a armed revolution, or from their proponents getting voted out?
Do you think a socialist system is the will of the masses?
It will be eventually.
But until then, a revolution would necessarily be undemocratic.
Please read theory, you're speaking nonsense. No one is advocating for 3 random Communists to overthrow the state by themselves. There can be no revolutionary movement without the support of the masses.
You can absolutely have a revolution without majority support, you just need support of the majority of the power.
Not exactly a revolution then.
What'd you call a overthrow of the government with say 30% popular support? A coup?
Depends. You're very interested in avoiding reading books, so I don't really care to play semantical games with you when you don't know what we are talking about to begin with.
You have suggestions for books? I'm not going to be able to read more than a couple of pages in the middle of this conversation, but maybe after we're done?
My point is I don't think you should be advocating starting revolution till that opinion is close to a majority.
The book I linked in the beginning, Reform or Revolution, goes over the futility of Reform and the necessity of Revolution.
Nobody is advocating for prematurely trying to force a revolution, that is Adventurism and is looked down upon by Communists. Instead, build up dual power along democratic lines, so that when the contradictions within Capitalism and Imperialism weaken the State, there exists a ready-made organization that can integrate with the working masses. Read The State and Revolution for the strategy for Revolution, specifically.
It seemed like you were suggesting in your original comment that voting was futile and that we needed a revolution instead.
Voting is futile when it comes to enacting positive change, and we do need a revolution to actually enact change, but that doesn't mean we can will a revolution into existence out of thin-air. Revolution is inevitable in Capitalist systems as Capitalism declines out of its necessary contradictions.
It would be great if you would read some of what I have linked.
So do you think people should vote or not?
A revolution inherently gets rid of the checks and balances. The problem is the time period before new ones are set up.
That's why you set up the org that carries out the revolution in a democratic manner with checks and balances to begin with.
Please read theory.
A revolution in a democratic manner? We are taking about a violent armed revolution, right? For that, you need a military power structure, and big charismatic leaders to rally behind. There's no way a revolution would try to hold fair elections while they are fighting.
Sounds like you need to read theory and history. Marxists have advocated for democratic organizational structures for centuries.
But they don't actually put it in place because of the pressures during a revolution.
Pressures on the system from destabilization are threats of revolution, hence revolutionary pressure.
Do you think a democratic bureaucratic fully checked and balanced revolution would succeed in overthrowing the structure?
Has before and will again.
Examples?
USSR, Cuba, PRC, etc. Read theory and read history books. You're interested in neither though.